1/25

Nokia Siemens Networks

Mobile WiMAX coexistence
When WiMAX is deployed in spectrum
adjacent to other technologies
Leonid Bogod
30.07.2008

Technical White paper

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

2/25

Mobile WiMAX coexistence

1. Executive summary
Mobile WiMAX operates at frequencies higher than 2GHz as a Time Division Duplex
(TDD) system. In most cases, Mobile WiMAX deployment occurs with Frequency
Division Duplex (FDD) systems in the adjacent bands, for example, with Long Term
Evolution (LTE) or Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) systems in the
2.5GHz band and with Fixed WiMAX in the 3.5GHz band. Simultaneous operation of
transmitters and receivers from unsynchronized systems may cause interference and
degrade receiver sensitivity. It is very important to know in advance the mutual effect of
interference between systems and how to minimize it.
For the purpose of increasing frequency utilization, local regulators want to minimize the
guard band between TDD and FDD systems. The regulator can specify a block-edge
mask and an external guard band. However, an operator may introduce an internal
guard band based on product parameters and on allowed receiver desensitization. On
one hand, the internal guard band helps the operator meet the block-edge mask for the
transmitter and reduce the requirements for a receiver filter. On the other hand, the
internal guard band wastes spectrum. To find the optimum internal guard band value is
one of the goals of this study (3.5GHz case). Another aim of the study is to provide
information on the required coupling loss between TDD and FDD base stations.
To minimize capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX),
operators quite often want to share the same sites, a deployment called co-siting. In
this case, antenna placement needs to be done very carefully to achieve maximum
decoupling. In addition, the decoupling value cannot be arbitrarily large for the
separated sides. To maximize revenue, the operators would like serve the same areas
with high population, which means the distance between different network sites cannot
be more than a half of cell radius on average, i.e., around 0.5km, and antenna
placement should support maximum antenna pointing loss.
Coexistence of two TDD networks is achievable without any additional coupling loss if
both uplink and downlink are synchronized, i.e., transmitted and received time frames
are the same as well as the starting points. If some of these conditions are not valid,
then the two TDD base stations impact each other. In the case of two unsynchronized
TDD systems, the requirements for coexistence are quite similar to those for TDD/FDD
systems.
This paper analyzes Mobile WiMAX coexistence allocation in the 3.5GHz and 2.5GHz
bands in the presence of FDD systems in the adjacent channels. Coexistence
conditions have been calculated assuming that the network product parameters are in
compliance with the most relevant coexistence standards and regulator
recommendations.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

3/25

1.1

List of abbreviations
3GPP

3rd Generation Partnership Project

ACLR

Adjacent Channel Leakage power Ratio

ACS

Adjacent Channel Selectivity

BS

Base Station

BW

Bandwidth

CAPEX

Capital Expenditure

CEPT

Conference of European Postal & Telecommunications

DL

Downlink

ECC

Electronic Communication Committee

ESD

Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation

EGB

External Guard Band

EIRP

Emission Isotropic Radiated Power

ETSI

European Telecommunications Standards Institute

FDD

Frequency Division Duplex

FSL

Free Space Loss

GB

Guard Band

IMP

Intermodulation Product

IGB

Internal Guard Band

IRC

Interference Rejection Combining

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

LOS

Line-of-Sight

LTE

Long Term Evolution

MRC

Maximum Ratio Combining

NF

Receiver Noise Figure

OPEX

Operational Expenditure

Rx

Receiver

SEM

Spectrum Emission Mask

SINR

Signal to Interference-plus-Noise Ratio

TDD

Time Division Duplex

Tx

Transmitter

UL

Uplink

WCDMA

Wideband Code Division Multiple Access

WiMAX

Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

4/25

2. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to specify minimum requirements to support coexisting
deployment of Mobile WiMAX Networks with other unsynchronized systems. These
recommendations are based on the latest available standards and regulations.
The WiMAX Forum, ITU, ECC and regulators have actively studied the same topic.
However, those studies are based on theoretical base station (BS) parameters and they
do not correspond necessarily to real situations. Additionally, the studies include an
abstract mathematical analysis that makes them difficult to use in practice.
Most cellular networks today use the FDD method, while Mobile WiMAX is a TDD
system. Synchronization is typically not assumed for FDD systems; here we assume
the same for co-existence with Mobile WiMAX
No timing synchronization.
To increase revenue from a spectrum auction, local frequency regulators are selling
frequency blocks without any guard bands. However, operators need to introduce an
internal guard band to full fill out-off-band emission requirements and to protect own
receiver from an intolerable desensitization value
How much an internal guard band is needed?
All operators try to cover areas with the highest population density to increase revenue.
This means unsynchronized (TDD and FDD) networks will likely be built in the same
geographical area
What is the minimum geographical separation needed among
the sites?
Alternatively, to save capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX),
operators always try to re-use existing sites. For example, Mobile WiMAX BSs could be
placed at the same site with FDD BSs
How to place antennas to achieve secure decoupling loss?

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

5/25

3. Technical background
The BS transmitter (aggressor) from one network may impact the BS receiver from another
network when these networks cover the same geographical area.
In this case several deployment scenarios are possible:
a) Two unsynchronized BSs are placed at separate sites (separated case)
b) Co-sited deployment refers to transmitting facilities that operate at the same site using a
common tower or mast
.
Depending on the deployment case, interference will decrease by propagation loss or by antenna
coupling loss for separated and co-sited case, respectively.
The mutual interference is caused by non-idealities of the transmitter (aggressor) and the victim
receiver. These effects can be analyzed depending on the frequency separation of the systems:
1. Aggressor transmitter and victim receiver are in adjacent channels. The mutual effects can
be calculated by Adjacent Channel power Leakage Ratio (ACLR) of the transmitter and
Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS) of the receiver.
2. Aggressor transmitter and victim receiver channels are separated by at least two times the
channel bandwidths. In this case, the spurious emissions of the transmitter and the blocking
characteristics of the receiver must be considered when allocating bandwidth.
Within this White paper, we consider only the first case, which corresponds to a worst-case
situation.
Additionally, it is important to carefully calculate the effect of the intermodulation distortion product,
which is caused by receiver non-linearity. This calculation should be based on the receiver
parameters and frequency plan.

3.1

Interference sources

Radio signals are difficult to restrain both in space and in frequency, especially for wideband
transmission. As shown in Figure 1, there are three main sources of co-channel interference
(blocking effect is not shown):

Out-of-band interference (interference 1), resulting from the modulation process and nonlinearity in the transmitter and represented by ACLR. Interference 1 is calculated as a
subtraction (in dB) of output power and ACLR value.

Interference caused by non-ideality of a receiver filter (Interference 2). This measurement

shows how much unwanted power leaks to the receiver against the ideal receiver filter
(shaded blue area), or how well the receiver filter can reject the dominant signal from an
adjacent channel, i.e., Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS). Interference 2 is calculated as a
subtraction (in dB) of output power and ACS value.
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

6/25

Victim Rx

Tx Pout (aggressor)

Tx SEM
Rx filter
Interfererence1
Interfererence2

ACLR
ACS

In-band

Adjacent
band

Figure 1: Interference sources (blocking effect is not shown).

3.2

Interference mitigation techniques

Several interference mitigation methods are used for deployments where WiMAX needs
to coexist with other systems without inter-operator synchronization.

3.2.1

External filter

An external filter can improve the transmitter emission mask and the receiver filter
selectivity. Unfortunately, the external filter may be bulky and expensive. Additionally,
the external filter has approximately 1.5dB insertion loss that will have an effect on
transmission power and receiver sensitivity.

3.2.2

Frequency planning

A frequency plan can mitigate interference avoiding the use of adjacent frequency
channels by an unsynchronized transmission system.
The simulation results presented in Sections 4.4 and 5.3 show that it is not possible to
achieve a technology-neutral deployment for two networks operated in the same
geographical area without a frequency guard band. Guard bands are needed to
facilitate external filtering by providing a transition band for filter roll-off.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

7/25

3.2.3

Antenna pointing loss

Deployment of two BSs with three-sector antennas is presented in Figure 2. 3dB

pointing loss can be achieved easily with the 65 half-power, beam-width antenna
pattern. Additional isolation may be available from the vertical down tilt of the antennas,
however, this is not considered further in the following worst-case analysis.

gain
17dB

gain
17dBi

gain
<14dBi

gain
17dBi

gain
<14dBi
Antenna pointing loss
(3+3) dB

gain
17dBi

gain
17dBi

gain
17dBi

Figure 2: Base station deployment and pointing loss.

3.2.4

Antenna decoupling

To save CAPEX and OPEX, network operators try to reuse existing sites, for example,
by co-siting WiMAX BS antennas with other antennas. These antennas can be placed
on the same mast (vertical separation) or on the same level (horizontal separation).
The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards usually assume a 30dB
coupling loss between unsynchronized TDD base stations for a co-siting deployment
(Reference 4). However, according to measurements described in Reference 1 and
information provided by the antenna manufacturer Kathrein, a decoupling value of 56dB
(vertical separation) and 50dB (horizontal separation) can be achieved with reasonable
1-2m separation and careful antenna installation.

3.2.5

Baseband methods

Receiver diversity channels in a combined implementation in the base station can give
several dB gain in the link budget. The combining solutions can be Maximum Ratio
Combining (MRC) or Interference Rejection Combining (IRC). MRC is the optimal
solution when the interference is mainly white Gaussian noise, while IRC provides
additional Signal to Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) gain in the case of dominant
interferers.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

8/25

4. Analysis approach
4.1

Equivalent sensitivity degradation

An operator will see an impact of the interference as a reduction of the cell coverage and
throughput capacity. From a technical point of view, the interference increases the noise floor that
causes BS receiver degradation.
Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) is the subtraction between the receiver sensitivity without
and with interference. ESD is described in Reference 1 and can be calculated as Equation 1:
Cint N floor

ESD [dB ] = 10 Log 10 1 + 10 10

(Equation 1)

Where:
Cint: Interferer contribution into receiver [dBm]
Nfloor: Noise floor of receiver [dBm]
Cint is the sum of the interference that falls within the receiver filter. Nfloor at room temperature is
calculated as Equation 2:

N flloor [dB ] = 174 + 10 Log 10 ( BW ) + NF

(Equation 2)

Where:
BW: Operating bandwidth in MHz
NF: Receiver noise figure in dB

These calculations show that ESD does not depend on the network service type and it can be
applied to any network.
It shall be noted that no intra-system interference (e.g. due to emissions from co-channel mobiles)
was assumed in the definition of the ESD. Hence, the ESD, as defined here, corresponds to the
thermal noise limited case i.e. worst case conditions as far as the relative impact due to adjacent
channel interference is concerned.

4.2

Interference source contribution

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

9/25

As shown in Section 2.1, there are several interference sources. The interferer contribution can be
calculated as the linear sum (in mW) of the various interference sources as descried in 3.1
f3
f2
Interference1 _ mW ( f )df + Interfernce2 _ mW ( f )df
f1
f2
Interfer _ total (dBm / MHz) =
BW 1

Equation 3
_ dB

Where:
BW1= f2-f1 assigned channel; (f3-f2) = bandwidth determinable by an actual RX filter across the
adjacent channel
_mW =dB conversion to mW;

_dB = mW conversion to dB

Equation 3 can be rewritten in a more common manner (Equation 4):

Interfer _ total(dBm) = ( Pout _ mW * (

1
1
1
1
+
+
+
)) _ dB
ACLR1 _ mW ACLR2 _ mW ACS1 _ mW ACS 2 _ mW

(Equation 4)
Where:
Pout: Aggressor output power in mW;
ACLR1_mW and ACLR2_mW: Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio for 1st and 2nd adjacent channels,
respectively, in linear form
ACS1_mW and ACS2_mW: Adjacent Channel receiver Selectivity for 1st and 2nd adjacent
channels, respectively, in linear form
An interference level on the receiver is a subtraction from the transmitter interference level and
losses that depend on the deployment scenario (Section 2.2). To calculate the interference level at
the receiver, several parameters need to be taken into account (Equation 5):

Interfer _ Rx(dB) = Interfer _ total (FSL Gant + APL + FL + OTH )

Where:
Gant: total antenna gain of aggressor and victim combined
FSL: Free Space Loss
APL: Antenna pointing loss
FL: Fading loss
OTH: Others

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

(Equation 5)

10/25

4.3

Propagation model

In this paper, the propagation loss is calculated by the most commonly used Free Space
Propagation Loss model (Reference 2) that gives minimum attenuation for Line-of-Sight
propagation (Equation 6):

FSL = 32.44 + 20 Log 10 ( F ) + 20 Log 10 ( D )

(Equation 6)

Where:
F is the operating frequency (in GHz)
D is the distance (in meters)
The operator can modify the results to add fading loss, rain effect, reflection and other factors
according to real allocation conditions.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

11/25

5. Mobile WiMAX deployment at 3.5GHz

For Mobile WiMAX operation, the most commonly available frequency bands in many European
countries are 3400-3600 MHz and 3600-3800 MHz. Previously, licenses for those bands were
issued for Fixed WiMAX. The Fixed WiMAX is a FDD system while the Mobile WiMAX is a TDD
system. It means that to Mobile WiMAX (TDD) BS needs to coexist with Fixed WiMAX (FDD) BS in
this band. In other words, the Mobile WiMAX deployment should support a technology-neutral
allocation.

5.1

Frequency licenses

In the 3.5GHz band, frequency licenses are often given for Broadband Wireless Access without
specifically mentioning the access method. This licensing has been the case in Germany and Italy
among other countries.
Figure 3 shows the frequency license band allocations that were issued in Italy. In certain
geographical areas, each block (two times 21MHz) A, B or C was given to only one operator. For
example, block A consists of 3437-3458MHz and 3537-3558MHz. The operator can use these
bands for a FDD system with 100MHz downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) separation, or for TDD
systems as two separate carriers.

Figure 3: Frequency band allocation (3.5GHz) for Broadband Wireless Access in Italy.
To harmonize FDD and TDD deployment in the same geographical area, local regulators in most
European countries require that a base stations block-edge-spectrum-emission masks are in
compliance with ECC RECOMMENDATION (04)05 (Reference 3).

5.2

Block-edge-spectrum-emission mask

The ECC Recommendation (04)05 specifies the maximum in-band Emission Isotropic Radiated
Power (EIRP) and out-of-band or block-edge mask. The recommendation includes some
assumptions about the internal and external guard bands, but exact values for these bands depend
on operator requirements, the deployment scenario and network equipment specifications.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

12/25

According to ECC Recommendation (04)05, the transmitter Block-Edge-Spectrum-Emission Mask

(SEM) should be above the red line (block-edge mask) as shown in Figure 4. Those requirements
are not possible to be achieved without an external filter and a guard band towards the aggressor.
It is clear that in the case of a more linear transmitter and a stronger filter, a Tx guard band could
be smaller.
On the other hand, a block-edge mask determines how much interference falls into the victim
receiver. With a decrease in the internal guard band, the victim receiver will move to the aggressor
band and total interference will increase. To achieve minimum receiver degradation, the Rx guard
band should be as big as 35% of the aggressor assigned block.
Figure 4 shows the following case, which is also discussed as case 1 in Section 4.3:

Assigned block is 21MHz

Internal and external guard band is 3.5MHz
Occupied band is 2x7MHz

Figure 4: The base stations block-edge-spectral-density mask defined in ECC

Recommendation (04)05. (assigned block is 21MHz)

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

13/25

5.3

Channel allocation

Assuming the operator can use the 21MHz band, many different channel allocation scenarios can
be considered. The following cases are the most relevant:
1. Unsynchronized aggressor system on both sides of the assigned band:
a. Occupied band: 14MHz, Internal Guard Band (IGB): 3.5MHz, External Guard Band
(EGB): 3.5MHz
Operator A (victim)
7MHz

IGB EGB

7MHz

Operator B (Aggressor)
7MHz

7MHz
21MHz

21MHz

b. Occupied band: 15MHz, IGB: 3.0MHz, EGB: 3.0MHz

Operator A (victim)
5MHz

5MHz

IGB EGB

Operator B (Aggressor)

5MHz

5MHz

5MHz

5MHz

21MHz

21MHz

2. Unsynchronized aggressor system on one side of the assigned band:

a. Occupied band: 15MHz, IGB: 6.0MHz, EGB: 3.0MHz

Operator A (victim)
5MHz

IGB 6.0MHzEGB
3.0MHz

Operator B (Aggressor)

5MHz

5MHz

5MHz

5MHz

5MHz

21MHz

21MHz

b. Occupied band: 17MHz, IGB: 4.0MHz, EGB: 3.0MHz

Operator A (victim)
5MHz

7MHz
21MHz

5MHz

EGB
IGB
4MHz 3.0MHz
5MHz

Operator B (Aggressor)
5MHz
21MHz

c. Occupied band: 19MHz, IGB: 2.0MHz, EGB: 2.0MHz

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

5MHz

14/25

Operator A (victim)

7MHz

7MHz

5MHz

21MHz

IGB EGB
2MHz 2MHz

Operator B (Aggressor)
5MHz

7MHz

7MHz

21MHz

The cases 2b and 2c have unequal channels inside the occupied band. In those cases, the channel
with the minimum bandwidth should be allocated on the border with the most sensitive alien
systems in order to decrease out-of-band emission.

5.4

Simulation results

The simulation results represent a deterministic approach. i.e., without any probability distribution
of the base stations.
As shown in Section 3:

Total interference is the integral of all interferers which fall into the receiver filter band
Total interference depends on an internal guard band and receiver bandwidth and
selectivity
Receiver selectivity is the aggregation of internal receiver parameters and external filter
response

The simulation calculations used Equations 2-5, with the block-edge-spectral-density mask defined
in Reference 3 and receiver typical values defined in Table 1.
According to explanatory notes from Australias regulator (Reference 7), a co-located deployment
(BSs) consists of a co-sited deployment and it refers to transmitting facilities that provide a service
to the same geographical area but may use multiple towers and masts on one or more sites.
In this paper, a co-located deployment is divided into two cases:
a) Two unsynchronized BSs in the same geographical area (separated sites)
b) Co-sited deployment refers to transmitting facilities that operate at the same site
using a common tower or mast
Common parameters used in the calculation of receiver sensitivity degradation are shown in Table
1.
Table 1: Parameters for calculating receiver sensitivity degradation.
Parameter
Spectrum Emission Mask
Output power
NF
ACS
External filter frequency
response

Value
According to ECC(04)05
10 W
6 dB
Depends on IGB, min. 40 dB
To fulfill Spectrum Emission Mask

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

15/25

External filter insertion loss

Antenna gain
Antenna pointing loss

5.4.1

1.5 dB
17 dB
3 dB

Separated sites

In the case where two BSs are located on separated sites, the interference will be
increased by the antenna gain and attenuated by the antenna pointing loss and
propagation loss.
Figure 5 shows that BS receiver degradation depends on coupling loss between two
unsynchronized BSs for the cases described in Section 4.3. For demonstration
purposes, the coupling loss is converted to the separation distance between BSs by
using Equation 6 and a total 6dB antenna pointing loss. One can see from Equation 6
that the Free Space propagation Loss (FSL) for certain operating frequencies depends
only on the separation distance.

Receiver Sensitivity degradation

18.0

S degradation, dB

15.0

BW=14MHz,IGB=3.5MHz,EGB=3.5MHz
BW=15MHz,IGB=3MHz,EGB=3MHz

12.0
9.0

BW=15MHz,IGB=6MHz,EGB=3MHz
BW=17MHz,IGB=4 EGB=3MHz
BW=19MHz,IGB=2MHz,EGB=2MHz

6.0
3.0
0.0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
BS separation distance, m

Figure 5: WiMAX BS receiver degradation in the presence of an

unsynchronized BS in the same geographical area (excluding external filter
loss of approximately 1.5dB).
Based on knowledge of the distance between a site and an aggressor BS, as well as
band plans and an acceptable receiver degradation value, the operator can determine
the internal guard-band value needed (Figure 5).
For example, if:

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

16/25

The aggressor is 200m from the BS site being studied

And the aggressor is neighboring on one side of a block (case 2 in Section 4.3)
The acceptable receiver degradation is 3dB

Then, in accordance with Figure 5, the operator can use a 17MHz operating band and
leave 4MHz as the internal guard band.

5.4.2

Co-siting deployment

Co-siting deployment, the case where two or more BSs share the same site, is
preferred by operators to save CAPEX and OPEX.
In the co-siting case, the total interference at the receiver will be decreased only by
coupling loss.
The simulation results for the cases described in Section 4.3 are shown in Figure 6.

S degradation, dB

Receiver Sensitivity degradation

39.0
36.0
33.0
30.0
27.0
24.0
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0

BW=14MHz,IGB=3.5,EGB=3.5MHz
BW=15MHz,IGB=3MHz,EGB=3MHz
BW=15MHz,IGB=6MHz,EGB=3MHz
BW=17MHz,IGB=4MHz,EGB=3MHz
BW=19MHz,IGB=2MHz,EGB=2MHz

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95 100

BS isolation, dB

Figure 6: WiMAX BS receiver desensitization for co-siting deployment with an

unsynchronized BS (excluding external filter loss of approximately 1.5dB).
When calculating limiting requirements (e.g., spurious emissions, ACLR), the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards usually assume a 30dB coupling loss
between unsynchronized TDD base stations for a co-siting deployment (Reference 4).

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

17/25

However, according to measurements shown in Reference 1 and information from the

antenna manufacturer Kathrein, a decoupling value of 56dB (vertical separation) and
50dB (horizontal separation) can be achieved with reasonable 1-2m distance. A
comparison of these values with Figure 6 shows the operator should use a minimum
internal guard band of 4MHz to achieve less than 3dB receiver desensitization.
A co-siting deployment for uncoordinated BSs with less than 3MHz internal guard band
is possible if:
1. The operator accepts more than 4dB desensitization or
2. An interference mitigation technique is used (see Section 2.2) or
3. Antennas are placed on different floors
The situation will be different if the assigned block has another size, e.g., 14 MHz in
Hungary and 15 MHz in France. The smaller block size will require a stronger blockedge mask that will cause less interference from the aggressor transmitter and less
ESD of the victim receiver. For example, achieving 3dB ESD with 3.5GHz IGB can be
done for a 14MHz block with 52dB antenna coupling loss and for a 21MHz block with
58dB antenna coupling loss. Of course, the useful frequency band for the 14MHz block
is almost two times less.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

18/25

6. Mobile WiMAX deployment in 2.5GHz

The 2.5GHz band is expected to be the most popular frequency band for Mobile WiMAX
deployment in European countries. Mobile WiMAX may be deployed within the frequency gap
between the FDD downlink and uplink.

6.1

Frequency channeling arrangement

In the CEPT (Conference of European Postal & Telecommunications) band plan proposed by the
ECC (04)05 decision, the channeling arrangement shown in Figure 7 is allowed for Mobile WiMAX
deployment in the 2.5GHz band. TDD systems such as Mobile WiMAX or LTE-TDD could be
allocated within the gap between the FDD downlink and uplink.
2570 MHz

2500 MHz
FDD- UL

2620 MHz
WiMAX TDD

FDD BS TDD BS

2690 MHz
FDD- DL

TDD BS FDD BS

Figure 7: CEPT band plan proposed by ECC Decision (05)05.

In many European countries, only 40MHz will be available for the TDD (WiMAX or LTE) allocation
and a total of 10MHz (i.e. 5 MHz at each FDD/TDD transition frequency) will be used as guard
bands to mitigate the interference effect of aggressor transmitters on a victim receiver (Figure 7).
However, in some countries such as the UK and Norway, the local regulator is proposing a flexible
FDD/TDD transition frequency. This proposal is in line with a new regulation for the 2.6 GHz
frequency band, published by the European Commission in July, 2008 (Reference 9).
When the TDD system (WiMAX) resides within the gap between the FDD downlink and uplink,
there are mutual effects on both systems: WiMAX (TDD) is affected by transmissions from the
unsynchronized FDD BS (i.e., WCDMA or LTE) and WiMAX (TDD) could cause interference
problems for the FDD receiver.
Most likely the TDD band will be shared among several operators. To avoid interference, the
networks operated in the geographical area should be synchronized. Otherwise, mutual
interference between them will be similar to TDD-FDD interference.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

19/25

6.2

Regulations

As of mid-2008, two documents regulate coexisting deployments in the 2.5GHz band in EU

countries: ETSI EN 302 544-1 (Reference 5) and CEPT Report 019 (Reference 6) (based on the
ECC SE42 Recommendation).
In the EU, a network product must comply with ETSI EN 301 544-1 (Reference 5) in order to be
placed on the market. However, a preliminary analysis shows that even if WiMAX BSs are in
compliance with the specification in Reference 5, some coexistence issues remain as the spurious
emission level of -45dBm/MHz applies only for a frequency gap of more than two time the channel
bandwidths between the unsynchronized systems.
The local regulator could therefore require a more restrictive Block edge mask (BEM) limit for
network deployment, such as the EIRP limit specified in ECC SE42 Recommendation (as e.g. is
the case in Sweden). Figure 8 shows an example of a TDD EIRP BEM for a 20MHz TDD license
block that is adjacent to a FDD uplink (UL) spectrum block.

60

FDD-UL

FDD-DL

40

4 dBm/MHz

20
0
20

-45 dBm/MHz

40
2500

2520

2540

2560

2580

2600

2620

2640

2660

2680

Figure 8: TDD BEM for a 20MHz TDD license adjacent to FDD uplink (UL) spectrum block
(Reference 6).
5MHz guard band is applied on both TDD/FDD transition frequencies: the 2570-2575MHz guard
band protects the FDD uplink from TDD emissions and the 2615-2620MHz guard band facilitates
the stringent TX filtering requirements for the FDD BS. Both guard bands are taken from the TDD
region. At frequencies below those guard bands, a -45dBm/MHz EIRP value must be fulfilled by
any aggressor transmitter.
All following calculations are made according to the CEPT 019 Report (ECC SE42
Recommendation).

6.3

Simulation results

Figure 9 helps operators understand and calculate the interference that falls into the receiver bands
in the case where WiMAX (TDD) and LTE (FDD) co-exist on adjacent frequencies.
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

20/25

FDD(LTE)-UL

WiMAX TDD

FDD Rx External filter

FDD(LTE)-DL

TDD External filter

36dBm/MHz

Power density at antenna

FDD Rx channel
filter

TDD Rx
channel filter

-13dBm/MHz

-62dBm/MHz

Figure 9: Interference levels (according to SE42) and filters related to co-existing FDD/TDD
(10MHz BW), Antenna Gain with cable loss is 17dB)
Table 2 shows common parameters of WiMAX (typical values) and LTE (according to 3GPP TS
36.104v8) that are used for determining selectivity degradation on the victim receiver.
Table 2: Parameters for the coexistence calculation.
LTE WiMAX
Channel bandwidth
(for both, WiMAX
and LTE)
Output Power
spectral density,
dBm/MHz
Rx bandwidth, MHz
External Filter (Rx)
attenuation from
the channel edge,
dB
ACS1, dB
ACS2, dB
Noise floor, dBm
Antenna gain
Pointing loss, dB

WiMAX LTE

Comments

5MHz

10MHz

5MHz

10MHz

36

33

36

33

Pout=20W

4.8
50 at
5MHz

9.6
60 at
10MHz

4.5
50 at
5MHz

9.0
60 at
10MHz

To reject
blocking

42
67
-102
17
3

42
67
-99
17
3

45.7
54.7
-102.5
17
3

45.7
54.7
-99.5
17
3

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

NF=5dB

21/25

Interference of a WiMAX transmitter to a LTE receiver and interference of a LTE transmitter to a

WiMAX receiver have been calculated by using Equation 4.
The calculations show if WiMAX and LTE are occupied on adjacent channels with 5MHz guard
band, 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation can be achieved only with significant external filtration
on the receiver side. For WiMAX, the same filter can be also used for Spectral Emission Mask
(SEM) shaping, but for LTE-FDD system it requires an additional RX filter.
Filter requirements can be relaxed if:

aggressor emission to in guard band is less

Guard band is more than 5MHz, e.g. if the systems are not adjacent
Actual implemented ACS value of the BS is larger
More than 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation is allowed or allowance for intra-system
interference is made

Two coexisting deployment scenarios are considered in the following calculations (the scenarios
are described in Section 4.4):
a) Separated sites and
b) Co-sited sites

6.3.1

Separated sites

In the case of two BSs that are located at separated sites, the interference will be increased by
antenna gain and attenuated by antenna pointing loss and propagation loss.
Figures 10 a) and b) show the effect of BS Tx LTE on the BS WiMAX receiver and BS Tx WiMAX
on the BS LTE receiver, respectively. The effect depends on coupling loss. For demonstration
purposes, the coupling loss is converted to the separation distance between the BSs by using
Equation 6 and the total 6dB antenna pointing loss is taken into account.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

22/25

20W WiMAX Tx in adjacent channel

21.0

21.0
18.0

5MHz BW

15.0

10MHz BW

LTE Receiver ESD, dB

WiMAX Receiver ESD, dB

20W LTE Tx in adjacent channel

12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0

18.0

5MHz BW

15.0

10MHz BW

12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0

100

200

300

400

500

BS to BS Separation, m

a)

100

200

300

400

500

BS to BS Separation, m

b)

Figure 10: Receiver Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) depends on relative

BS separation. a) LTE Tx to WIMAX Rx. b) WiMAX Tx to LTE Rx.
According to the simulation results (Figure 10), the interference effects of LTE Tx to
WiMAX Rx and WiMAX Tx on LTE Rx quite similar for the 5MHz and 10MHz bandwidth.
The separation distance between LTE and WiMAX base station should be between 140
and 160 m, to achieve 3dB Rx sensitivity desensitization when taken into account nonideality of the victim receiver. The separation distance can be decreased
approximately on 50m if ACS1 and ACS2 are 50dB and 70dB, respectively.
Of course results will vary depending on:
-

6.3.2

Tx output power
Antenna gain and pointing loss
Actual ACS and external filter values

Co-siting case

In the co-siting case, total interference at the receiver will decrease only with antenna coupling
loss.
The simulation results are shown in Figure 11.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

23/25

20W WiMAX Tx in adjacent channel

18.0
5MHz BW

15.0

10MHz BW

12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0

LTE Receiver ESD, dB

WiMAX Receiver ESD, dB

20W LTE Tx in adjacent channel

18.0
15.0

5MHz BW

12.0

10MHz BW

9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

30

35

40

BS to BS decoupling, dB

a)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

BS to BS decoupling, dB

b)

Figure 11: Receiver Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) depends on

antenna decoupling at the BSs a) LTE Tx to WIMAX Rx b) WiMAX Tx to LTE Rx.
One can see that in order to achieve 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation will require
51-52dB antenna decoupling.
According to experimental results such decoupling values can be achieved with careful
antenna installation.

7. Conclusions
This paper has analyzed the coexistence of Mobile WiMAX with FDD systems in the most popular
allocation bands (3.5GHz and 2.5GHz). Unsynchronized WIMAX was assumed as an alien system
in the 3.5GHz case and LTE in the 2.5GHz case. These two cases were handled in a slightly
different way.
For the 3.5GHz case, an assigned block of 21MHz is assumed and a transmitter block-edgeemission mask in compliance with Reference 3. The required internal guard band (IGB) and
maximum operated band have been calculated based on several factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.

An alien system on one or both sides of the assigned block

Allowable WiMAX victim receiver desensitization
Co-sited or separate sites
Coupling loss between base stations

Table 5 shows the summary of the simulations that allowed 3dB receiver desensitization.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

24/25

Table 5: Calculated required BS separation and antenna decoupling for different deployments
(3.5GHz band).
Operating
Bandwidth

1
2
3
4
5

Internal GB
(+External GB)

Required BS
Required antenna
to BS
decoupling, dB
separation*), m
(co-siting) *)
2x7MHz
3.5 (+3.5) MHz
140
57
3x5MHz
3.0 (+3.0) MHz
230
63
3x5MHz
6.0 (+3.0) MHz
<100
50
5+7+5 MHz 4.0 (+3.0) MHz
105
56
5+7+7 MHz 2.0 (+2.0) MHz
670
72
*)
3dB Rx desensitization allowed, filter IL is not included

Aggressor on
both sides
both sides
one side
one side
one side

If the occupied band consists of unequal channels, then the channel with minimum bandwidth
should be allocated on the border with the most sensitive alien systems to decrease out-of-band
emission.
Coexistence with the 2.0 MHz internal guard band (case #5 in Table 5), is impossible to achieve
without inter-operator cooperation for more restricted block edge masks, more antenna coupling or
pointing loss, etc.
Of course, if the operator allows more than 3dB receiver desensitization, the antenna coupling
values could be less (see Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Mobile WiMAX and LTE coexistence has been analyzed in the 2.5GHz band because most
probably LTE will be deployed in paired blocks (see Figure 7) in many countries.
In order to achieve coexistence in the 2.5GHz band, the network equipment should be in
compliance with the Block edge masks of the ECC SE42 Recommendation (Reference 6). This
compliance means that at least 5MHz guard bands between FDD and TDD systems are applied
(from both sides of the centre TDDallocation) and the BEM is implemented as shown in Figure 8.
In the presence of interferers in an adjacent channel (Figure 9), Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation
(ESD) was calculated for LTE and Mobile WiMAX receiver (Figure 10 and Figure 11) under near
worst case conditions.
The simulation results are show that 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation will require 51-52dB
antenna decoupling or 150m separation for co-site and separation case, respectively. The
separation distance can be decreased approximately on 50m by improving ideality of victim
receiver (i.e. ACS).

Finally, this study shows that coexistence of TDD (Mobile WiMAX) and FDD systems operated in
adjacent channels can be achieved with 3dB (or lower) receiver ESD when appropriate guard
bands and coupling losses are provided.
Practical issues of network planning are described in the Nokia Siemens Networks
paper Mobile WiMAX Radio Network Planning and Dimensioning Guide.
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

25/25

8. References:
1. GSM900, GSM1800 and UMTS FDD cositing analysis, COST 273TD(03)121, D.Bouguet,
May, 2003
2. IEEE L802.16-07/070r1, R. Arefi, 15.11.2007 (propagation)
3. ECC RECOMMENDATION (04)05
4. 3GPP TS 25.105v7.7.0 (2007-10) p.32
5. ETSI EN 302 544-1 v1.1.0, 2008-5
6. CEPT Report 019 (Draft), December 2007
7. http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_91856
8. ETSI TS 36.104v8, 2007-12
9. http://www.bbwexchange.com/pubs/2008/07/09/page1423-2862561.asp

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.